memo-sbe-jun16item01

Page 1 of 4

State Board of Education
Executive Office
SBE-002(REV.01/2011) / memo-sbe-jun16item01
memorandum
Date: / June3, 2016
TO: / MEMBERS, State Board of Education
FROM: / STAFF, California Department of Education,WestEd and State Board of Education
SUBJECT: / Update on Developing California’s New Accountability and Continuous Improvement Systemand Proposed Next Steps in Advance of July 2016 State Board of Education Meeting

The purpose of this information memorandum is to describe the next steps in finalizing the design for the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) evaluation rubrics based on the action the State Board of Education (SBE) took during its May 2016 meeting.This is the first in a series of information memoranda that will be posted in June 2016 to inform the July 2016 SBE meeting agenda item on accountability and continuous improvement.

Summary of SBE Action

At the conclusion of the item on accountability (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr16/documents/may16item02revised.doc), the SBE approved a proposed design for the LCFF evaluation rubricsthat includes:

  • The following state[1] indicators:
  • student test scores on English Language Arts and Math for grades 3-8 and grade 11, including a measure of individual student growth for grades 3-8, when feasible, and results on the Next Generation Science Standards assessment, when available;
  • progress of English learners toward English language proficiency;
  • high school graduation rate; and
  • measures of student engagement, including suspension rates by grade span and chronic absence, when available.
  • Using a methodologyfor calculating performance as a combination of outcome and improvement for the approved state indicators.
  • A component that supports analysis of local data.
  • A top-level summary data display for performance on all LCFF Priority Areas for LEAs and schools that prominently shows areas where there are significant disparities in performance for any student subgroups.

The SBE also directed staff to complete additional analysison the following topics in advance of the July 2016 SBE meeting:

  • Recommended standards for the LCFF Priority Areas that are not addressed by the approved state indicators, which include Priority 1 (Williams Settlement Requirements: Appropriately Assigned Teachers, Access to Curriculum-Aligned Instructional Materials, and Safe, Clean and Functional School Facilities), Priority 2 (Implementation of State Academic Standards), Priority 3 (Parent Engagement), Priority 7 (Access to a Broad Course of Study), Priority 8 (Outcomes in a Broad Course of Study).
  • Options for incorporating three other indicators into the overall LCFF evaluation rubrics design:
  • College and career readiness measures;
  • Local climate surveys, including identification of any items from the California Healthy Kids Survey and related surveys that could be adapted for use as part of the LCFF evaluation rubrics; and
  • A composite measure of English learner proficiency, including English learner proficiency rates, reclassification rates, and long-term English learner rates.

Anticipated Next Steps

The SBE’s action directed staff to proceed with the tasks described below, which will inform the SBE’s decisions at the July 2016 SBE meeting.

Complete data simulations for each “state” indicator adopted at the May 2016 SBE meeting using the adopted methodology.The adopted methodology involves establishing five performance bands for each state indicator, so that the performance of any local educational agency (LEA), school, or student subgroup will correspond with one of those performance bands. Staff will develop proposed performance bands for each state indicatorand recommend which performance band(s) correspond to assistance and support standards for each indicator. Staff will also recommend an approach for identifying additional goals for these indicators to support continuous improvement and how the evaluation rubrics will assist users in focusing on disparities among student subgroups at all levels of performance.

The state indicators approved by the SBE at the May 2016 meeting serve a specific purpose within California’s emerging local, state and federal accountability and continuous improvement system: County Superintendents, the Superintendent of Public Instruction/California Department of Education, and/or the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence will use them to identify the small number of LEAs or schools that are eligible for assistance or intervention under state and federal accountability requirements (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbe-feb16item03.doc). LEAs will continue to use the full range of indicators, including local indicators,reflected in the evaluation rubrics to support local planning, improvement efforts, and decision-making.

Staff recommend replacing the term “key” indicator with “state” indicator and replacing the term “associated” indicator with “local” indicator (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbe-feb16item02.doc). Staff believe that these changes provide user-friendly terms that more accurately reflect the specific intended uses of the state indicators and reinforce the importance of the remaining indicators, now referred to as local indicators,and the expectation that they will continue to be used locally, including in the LCAP and Annual Update process. Future materials will incorporate this terminology.

Establish standards for the LCFF state priorities that are not addressed by the state indicatorsapproved at the May 2016 SBE meeting. Staff will develop proposed standards for the remaining LCFF state priority areas and recommend how those standards could inform evaluation of whether an LEA has made sufficient progress or not for technical assistance orintervention.The remaining LCFF state priorities are:

  • Priority 1 (Williams Settlement Requirements: Appropriately Assigned Teachers, Access to Curriculum-Aligned Instructional Materials, and Safe, Clean and Functional School Facilities)
  • Priority 2 (Implementation of State Academic Standards)
  • Priority 3 (Parent Engagement)
  • Priority 7 (Access to a Broad Course of Study)
  • Priority 8 (Outcomes in a Broad Course of Study)
  • Priority 9 (Coordination of Services for Expelled Students – County Offices of Education Only)
  • Priority 10 (Coordination of Services for Foster Youth – County Offices of Education Only)

Staff are currently focused on areas where LEAs, County Superintendents and/or the Superintendent of Public Instruction can assess LEA or school performance within these LCFF priority areas using locally held information to determine whether a standard was “Met” or “Not Met.” For example, for Priority 1, an LEA can determine whether or not its schools meet the Williams settlement requirements.

Finalize the design of the LCFF evaluation rubrics.Staff will develop a full draft of each component of the final evaluation rubrics design, including:

  • Top-level summary display that clearly identifies significant disparities in performance on the state indicators for any student subgroups.
  • Proposed structure for a data analysis tool, which would allow users to generate more detailed reports that include both state and local indicators.
  • Proposed local indicators for inclusion in the data analysis tool, including a recommendation for identifying a limited number of options for certain local indicators that are grounded in research as valid and reliable measures for selection by LEAs.
  • Final draft of statements of model practices that provide qualitative descriptions of research-supported practices related to each state and local indicator.
  • Final draft of links to external resources that allow for access to more detailed information about implementing specific programs or services that align with the statements of model practices.
  • Proposed design for web-based interface that will allow users to navigate across the components of the evaluation rubrics.

Present options and recommended approach for incorporating the three additional indicators—college and career readiness, local climate surveys, and an English learner composite—into the evaluation rubrics design.

Identify possible approaches for integrating the design of the evaluation rubrics and the revised LCAP and Annual Update template to promote reflection on local practices and continuous improvement in a coherent and useful way. In finalizing the evaluation rubrics design, staff may recommend specific features or components that will promote the expected interaction between LEA- and school-level use of the evaluation rubrics and the annual LCAP and budget cycle. This interaction is central to the architecture for the accountability and continuous improvement system that the SBE approved at its March 2016 meeting. (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbe-feb16item03.doc, Attachment 2).

ATTACHMENT(S)

[1] These indicators have been referred to as “key” indicators in prior materials. As explained below, staff recommend referring to them as “state” indicators in the future.